Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Conversely, there is no principle, physical or otherwise, to keep someone of suitable strength from lifting another person from behind in a bear hug grip. There is nothing you can do in the manner described above because the connection is unitary and you cannot develop mechanical hinges to defeat the load path. Nothing. Not that there are not adequate and (devastating) defenses to defeat this attack, but they all involve definite movement to defeat the lift initially or allow the lift and defeat it in spite of that fact.

Well, how would you wrap your mind around things if there was a way? No movement but still defeating the initial lift from a bear hug?

I don't know that people are arguing against physical mechanics being "bad", maybe just not as useful, at this point, since it seems to be a phenomenon that needs to be "felt", rather than observed - at least until the experts agree on all the physical mechanics and appropriate methods to measure them - not to mention the agreed upon criteria for one's qualifications to even be able to "observe" the phenomenon with any degree of accuracy.

implying that it is 1) a phenomenon unknown to ordinary mechanics 2) the subject of more than generally attainable knowledge or sensitivity to observe or feel its mechanical operation, and 3) something that cannot be observed or felt, even if only infrequently, in other less deliberate training settings. I would not agree with any of those assumptions as they are contrary to my experience on all counts.

Quote:

Budd Yuhasz wrote:

But now we're really just waxing on and off about stuff that might not be relevant if we can't actually "do" any of it.

Stephen Hawking might have a thing or two to say about the the relationship between effective observing and relevant commentary versus the doing of much of anything. Of course, maybe I would be better at mechanics if I were in a wheelchair, but I doubt that has much to do with it either.

Well, how would you wrap your mind around things if there was a way? No movement but still defeating the initial lift from a bear hug?

Of course, there is a way. Just tie yourself to the floor. By all means, please tender some video of your ability in this regard, preferably without the rope or adhesive on the shoe soles. And as I said someone of suitable strength, lifting you in the first instance. Of course, your demonstration is only as valid as the trust we have in your partner's legitimate effort, so video is not adequate in this instance, unless we have reliable measures of the effort -- even though I would still like to see it.

So try this instead. I explained what is involved from my perspective in your example from directly comparable examples I have seen and done.

Please just explain carefully how you do it, in whatever way you feel comfortable describing it. We are all here to learn.

Well, gosh darn it.... I know another way. I must be special. Er, no, maybe not.... I've seen Shioda use the same principle I use. And O-Sensei. Pooh. Maybe I'm not so special. Dang.

The point is defeating the lift "without moving" in the manner described and without being lifted. I've seen various versions of your opinion of "not moving" on numerous proffered videos by now, and without exception -- they all moved.

The point is defeating the lift "without moving" in the manner described and without being lifted. I've seen various versions of your opinion of "not moving" on numerous proffered videos by now, and without exception -- they all moved.

This has been my experience too 100% in the people I've seen in person or on video claiming these amazing skills.

Or they'll do something like claim to be able to hit you without moving, but their legs move instead of their hand, or their hand moves in relation to their body because their waist is turning therefore justifying (in their minds) saying the hand does not move.

A secret of internal strength?:
"Let your weight from the crotch area BE in his hands."

The point is defeating the lift "without moving" in the manner described and without being lifted. I've seen various versions of your opinion of "not moving" on numerous proffered videos by now, and without exception -- they all moved.

I already have told you. You weren't listening.... well, more likely the description didn't conjure up the proper image because you were unfamiliar with what I was talking about, which would also happen even if I tried to explain it with very detailed physics. But regardless, people have seen me do this sort of thing and it's a "trick", but it's a trick that goes exactly according to how I've explained it right here on this forum. No big deal, except it does take some practice and the development of some odd skills. Like any magic trick, it seems impossible until someone shows how it's done.

This has been my experience too 100% in the people I've seen in person or on video claiming these amazing skills.

I think we're all quite sure that has been your experience, Justin. Interestingly enough, Robert W. Smith wrote that sometimes when he met Cheng Man Ching, Cheng liked to have Smith push on him from different directions and show that Smith's (relatively moderate, of course) pushes didn't move him. Now if you spent more time thinking about that and how it's done, instead of frantically trying to say something negative every chance you get, you might develop the logic to realize what I'm talking about and how it's done. But then..... maybe Cheng was a charlatan; a lot of people think his claims were fraudulent, so who knows?

I already have told you. You weren't listening.... well, more likely the description didn't conjure up the proper image because you were unfamiliar with what I was talking about, which would also happen even if I tried to explain it with very detailed physics.

Try me, please.

Quote:

Mike Sigman wrote:

But regardless, people have seen me do this sort of thing and it's a "trick", but it's a trick that goes exactly according to how I've explained it right here on this forum. No big deal, except it does take some practice and the development of some odd skills. Like any magic trick, it seems impossible until someone shows how it's done.

Oh, well. Magic tricks involve the deliberate concealment of the effective action, i.e. -- lying to the observer. Also known at one time as charlatanism -- that is, portraying something ordinary as something extraordinary to impress or deceive. And you wonder why the likes of Justin take issue. You directly invite it by such comments and the willful misdirection of plain and legitimate questions.

I said "bear hug." Wu Qin Xi works for bears -- doesn't work on snarks. Completely different set of techniques involved there. Snarks are a very different qigong animal.

1550-odd posts in this thread alone. Point to one, please. I will address it in this context. And just as an aside, why is it that you are so down on aikido when you were introduced to this aspect of movement or strength by an aikidoka? Why do we who follow the tradition given us have it so wrong, if it was introduced to you in aikido?

False. Many "magic tricks" involve simple physics that the observer is unfamiliar with or with skills the observer is unfamiliar with. Your haste to say something negative has tripped you up!

Quote:

1550-odd posts in this thread alone. Point to one, please. I will address it in this context.

Sorry. If I explain how to do it too clearly, you might figure out how to do it. Sort like how I began to skirt the issue of "fascia" once David Orange began to get a glimmer of what we were talking about. A year or two ago, I might have been more forthcoming (actually, I was more forthcoming, but I don't expect anyone to read through all those posts to find where I said something pretty clearly about how to do a few things), but lately I've begun to feel that some people just have "bad heart" and I really think the good guys should be the ones that these things are explained to. Trust me, though, I have been showing a fair number of people (including Aikidoists) how to do these things and I'm assured that a number of them read these exchanges on AikiWeb, enjoying the moment since they already know how to do these things and they can now tell who knows what when they post.

Trust me, though, I have been showing a fair number of people (including Aikidoists) how to do these things and I'm assured that a number of them read these exchanges on AikiWeb, enjoying the moment since they already know how to do these things and they can now tell who knows what when they post.

Regrettably, nothing more is forthcoming to add to the discussion. I am intrigued, however, by your service to my fellow aikidoists. Since you first were exposed to "these things" by an aikidoka, how is it that aikido has it so terribly, terribly wrong? After all, I suppose we cannot tell just by watching someone move, can we?

Your primary focus in the martial arts is "Internal Strength", but that phrase might mean almost anything: can you give me a few words explaining what "Internal Strength" means to you?
No, not really: it has to be shown. Originally, I did Judo and Karate extensively and met all kinds of people; then I ran into a Japanese guy who did Aikido. While he was showing me some things I realised he was using a very unusual form of strength: my definition always hinges on people who can manifest that kind of strength.
And that's sort of validated by the fact that other people - not everyone - but somebody who is reasonably intelligent and has some physical skills will say "Wow: that feels odd": so they know it too. When you meet somebody who doesn't have a vestige of that, I don't care how many forms he knows, techniques and applications that he does, if he's not able to manifest that, he doesn't use Internal Strength. In my getting support for that over the years, there have been a number of Chinese who are recognised as being really good who have recognised it the same way as I do. They sit there and just like me they watch somebody - at a certain level, you don't need to really touch somebody, just watch them move - and the question is always in their mind: "does he have this form of strength or not."

Interestingly enough, Robert W. Smith wrote that sometimes when he met Cheng Man Ching, Cheng liked to have Smith push on him from different directions and show that Smith's (relatively moderate, of course) pushes didn't move him.

That's nice, but I'm wondering what your bringing up of Smith (martial artist and historian) and Manqing (grandmaster of taijiquan the world over) have to do with anything here.

I don't think they claimed they could not be picked up, which was what was under discussion. Moreover, Zheng talked about "there are no secrets", despite the secret mongering that typically goes on.

Quote:

.... maybe Cheng was a charlatan; a lot of people think his claims were fraudulent, so who knows?

These "a lot of people" are interesting. Who are they? And again, Zheng could have killed baby seals in his spare time too... wouldn't have much to do with anything we are specifically discussing here, Mike.

Justin

A secret of internal strength?:
"Let your weight from the crotch area BE in his hands."

Regrettably, nothing more is forthcoming to add to the discussion. I am intrigued, however, by your service to my fellow aikidoists. Since you first were exposed to "these things" by an aikidoka, how is it that aikido has it so terribly, terribly wrong?

Your words, not mine. I think the discussion that *most* people in Aikido, including quite a few who are "teachers", have not learned how to do these things. In fact, that thought has so pervaded discussions for the last couple of years that I'm surprised that you missed it and are astonished at my comments. But at least you indicate that you have an open mind about new material; I'm sure someone will eventually pass these things your way (it does take hands-on, not internet writings) and you'll be able to look at my posts to see if even once I said something wrong or tried to mislead anyone. That's why I've always been very careful about my descriptions.

That's nice, but I'm wondering what your bringing up of Smith (martial artist and historian) and Manqing (grandmaster of taijiquan the world over) have to do with anything here.

What have you got to do with anything here, for that matter, Justin? You're a self-styled Cheng worshipper so I thought you might be able to identify more with the problem if it was focused on Cheng or on You.

Quote:

I don't think they claimed they could not be picked up, which was what was under discussion. Moreover, Zheng talked about "there are no secrets", despite the secret mongering that typically goes on.

It's the same principle, Justin. Instead of hurrying to find some insinuation or telling jape, you should do as I suggested and think about what I said.... perhaps you'll come up with an answer. Obviously Cheng used the same skills and you purport to be a "follower" of his, so really this is something you should already know by now right?

In terms of "there are no secrets", the only Cheng disciple who harped on that point was Wolfe Lowenthal who proved beyond doubt that indeed there must be secrets simply because he didn't know anything.

implying that it is 1) a phenomenon unknown to ordinary mechanics 2) the subject of more than generally attainable knowledge or sensitivity to observe or feel its mechanical operation, and 3) something that cannot be observed or felt, even if only infrequently, in other less deliberate training settings. I would not agree with any of those assumptions as they are contrary to my experience on all counts.

Actually, the way it looks to me is that you're changing the arguments around because (and I don't mean any offense, just calling it the way it looks to me) 1) You aren't able to communicate in common terms with the other people working on this stuff that seem to be able to do so just fine - so therefore you argue that it needs to be described in a fashion more according to terms acceptable to you. 2) You insist that you already have learned and/or are already doing this stuff in your practice of aikido, so the miscommunication must be because of someone else's shortcomings. 3) Anything that you might not know or not be currently doing should be explained to you or shown via terminology/media that you deem appropriate.

If I've gotten your perspective wrongly, then I apologize, but I fundamentally disagree with this and go back to my unfortunately-now-too-familiar-pose of "Go see what other people are doing". I hear there's a seminar on the West Coast in Seattle this November that should be VERY illuminating - sure wish I could make it.

I think we've been over this too, Mike. Can you reveal to me how I worship him? Any rational person can see that having a small webpage is not worship.

Quote:

, you should do as I suggested and think about what I said....

I'm not sure why you believe I'd value your advice, especially after insulting two well known practitioners, saying I worship things, and refusing to answer the most basic of questions.

Quote:

..and you purport to be a "follower" of his,

Where do I do that? You used quotes, so where is my quote of me saying I am his follower?

Quote:

In terms of "there are no secrets", the only Cheng disciple who harped on that point was Wolfe Lowenthal..

The fact is that others did.and do. One example, that you probably should have known is Smith, who said of Zheng

Quote:

He always said that there were no secrets; he couldn't give us a pill. There was only the work of relaxing and sinking (and we know how hard that is), or 'investing in loss' and thereby winning by losing.

But the main point is that Zheng himself said it. As opposed to a bunch of modern master mystery mongers aka 'there is no way I can describe my physical movement to you' type of stuff.

It is odd that Wolfe didn't know anything, according to you. People closest to Zheng back up Wolfe. Must be some conspiracy, right?

So you brought up Smith and Zheng, what point were you attempting to make?

I see you avoided answering

Quote:

These "a lot of people" are interesting. Who are they?

as well.

Justin

A secret of internal strength?:
"Let your weight from the crotch area BE in his hands."

Actually, the way it looks to me is that you're changing the arguments around because (and I don't mean any offense, just calling it the way it looks to me)

None taken. Call it like you see it. Ditto here.

Quote:

Budd Yuhasz wrote:

1) You aren't able to communicate in common terms with the other people working on this stuff that seem to be able to do so just fine - so therefore you argue that it needs to be described in a fashion more according to terms acceptable to you.

Not what I said or meant. The problem with "common terms" is that they are not generally precise, or are used in other contexts making them at much greater risk of being read as ambiguous or subject to differing interpretation. Cross-cultural terms are several multiples more at risk for these problems.

I am simply pointing out that methods of reorienting forces and manipulating them are the ordinary bread and butter of physical mechanics -- and yet this is one area in which there is a great lack of serious work on describing aiki and its operation. Mainly I continue because nobody else more capable in the physics with a sense of what is going on has taken it up.

Quote:

Budd Yuhasz wrote:

2) You insist that you already have learned and/or are already doing this stuff in your practice of aikido, so the miscommunication must be because of someone else's shortcomings. 3) Anything that you might not know or not be currently doing should be explained to you or shown via terminology/media that you deem appropriate.

Both of these presume I wish to impose a terminology of my own. I don't want anything explained to me, I want it explained for general consumption in unambiguous terms, that do not presume the knowledge that one is trying to convey. That tail-biting is the circle I am trying to move away from. The terms for proper mechanical description are well-established across language and cultural barriers providing a foundation that avoids much opportunity for the misunderstanding that often crops up otherwise.

As to any imposition, I have not and would never say that the perspective of mechanics is necessary to be able to do or to learn the things that are done in this way. I suggest it may be helpful to improve the learning, at least for some. But it may be absolutely critical to extend their application to areas and to other practices that have not previously seen them used and applied. "Feel" does not necessarily translate to different applications, but mechanics does.

Mainly I continue because nobody else more capable in the physics with a sense of what is going on has taken it up.

This is like deja vu all over again. You're the only one suggesting that you understand what is being talked about. So far, you've never convinced me, Rob, or others that it's true. Not by a long shot. You're pretty much by yourself with your descriptions and explanations. That's what Budd was suggesting. It's been suggested before and the suggestion has been made that you meet up with other people to back up your assertions. And by now, there are enough people who have seen and understood basic elements to be able to say "that's the same thing" or "that's very different from what everyone is talking about". Frankly, the pretense that you can do all these things but you don't recognize the descriptions, etc., Just doesn't fly. Budd was also suggesting that point in a polite way.

So far, you've never convinced me, Rob, or others that it's true. Not by a long shot. You're pretty much by yourself with your descriptions and explanations.

Mike, I've long since given up trying to convince you of anything.

Quote:

Mike Sigman wrote:

... suggesting. suggested .. suggestion

Innuendo. Persuasive.

Quote:

Mike Sigman wrote:

Frankly, the pretense that you can do all these things but you don't recognize the descriptions, etc., Just doesn't fly.

Mike. I am not your enemy, nor your opponent nor do I have any need to justify myself, physically, philosophically or otherwise. The insult reflects only on your character. I have have successfully avoided falling into kindergarten bragging and whup-ass contests, and for a few decades now. I don't intend to start.

Engage the ideas or ignore them. I don't care if you engage the ideas constructively or destructively, as both can be productive exercises. But the ideas do not depend on my merit or anyone's vain and ignorant presumption in that regard, even less because I choose not to engage your terminology for reasons of precision in what I am doing. There are no rules or definitions in this regard that you have any warrant to enforce. Remove me and the ideas remain.

Erick, there are a couple of Aunkai seminars coming up in November. If you are interested in these body mechanics, why not check one out?

In Seattle? Love to. Lessee, four kids, law practice, trials, house renovation, church work and aikido. Never mind Thanksgiving at my place this year. Not happening. I'm lucky to get twenty minutes here and there to think clearly before moving on to the next thing. Heck, I can't make time to get down to Orlando for Shihan seminars, and it's even odds whether I get to Tallahassee coming up.

Please post reports here, though. From all accounts, it should be good training. I've never said otherwise, regardless how strangely defensive some people seem to be about the tack I am following. I'd be most interested in Ledyard's perspective.

I hope you're not finding me to be too defensive, Erick, if anything, I'm just trying to encourage you (and everybody else - that's me, The Encourager!) to embrace my philosophy of "I may not know, so I'll go find out" . . . especially if you feel obliged to participate in these Non-Aikido discussions

Mainly I continue because nobody else more capable in the physics with a sense of what is going on has taken it up.

Quote:

Engage the ideas or ignore them. I don't care if you engage the ideas constructively or destructively, as both can be productive exercises. But the ideas do not depend on my merit or anyone's vain and ignorant presumption in that regard, even less because I choose not to engage your terminology for reasons of precision in what I am doing. There are no rules or definitions in this regard that you have any warrant to enforce. Remove me and the ideas remain.

The topic remains; whether you and your ideas have much to do with the actual topic has not been shown by you. Your insistence that everyone's descriptions conform to your standards when you have yet to show that you understand the topic is what the comments are trying to indicate. If you want your ideas respected, try doing the best you can in the approved "path" approach (the same approach I've seen diagrammed and explained by both Japanese and Chinese trying to put these things in writing) or go meet someone knowledgeable and show them what you can do. As you will remember, your insistences about "resistance" pretty much shot you out of the water as a knowledgeable commentator.

Regardless of everything else, progress is slowly being made. So I look at it all fairly positively.

Incidentally, I saw some video taken at the recent Rocky Mountain camp and I was able to watch more the focus of what Ikeda Sensei and Ushiro were pointing at. I got to see first hand what they were actually doing coupled with the way they tried to explain it. I think I see a good part of the problem and "hidden in plain sight" or "difficult to describe when English idiom isn't there" leap to mind. I need to think about this, having just watched it, but I can see in a positive way that it's probably only an epiphany away for a lot of people.

It's like training in this stuff. Everybody says, "oh, well, we already do that"...but no one seems to actually want to do the solo work it entails

It is interesting, the question of "we have that." What has happened for us is a discovery that we did "have" it, but we weren't giving it enough attention and what we had needed to be sharpened/corrected/refined in our practice.

I can't say where it came from other than our teacher who was a student of Ueshiba, but since meeting Rob and via discussions like these we have renovated and revivified this practice. People already complained about us being "too strong" before, now, just you look out.

Another thing. "We have that" is a dangerous idea as well. Many is the time when I have heard that phrase and what has followed was not the same at all. The proof always is in the execution.